An article today from The Canadian Press reports that tougher welfare rules in Canada have proved effective at reducing poverty.
Generally, I oppose government-funded and government-managed welfare. Though, I do not want to abruptly abolish it, because many people and families depend on it. Of course, welfare helps cause this dependency. When we give people things for free, they become dependent on those gifts–much like a spoiled and overprotected child who never learns to take care of him or herself.
They tell us that if you give a man a fish you only feed him for a day, and that teaching him to fish feeds him for a lifetime. They forget to tell us the trouble that giving fish to a man can cause. If you give him the fish, he will never bother to learn to fish, and the other guy who is learning how to fish will stop and come ask you for free fish instead of learning.
We cannot end poverty simply by giving things away for free, and we cannot end world hunger by giving away food. At best, such methods will be ineffective. At worst, they will be counterproductive, by inspiring dependency and undermining self-sufficiency.
First of all, it may help to simply offer needy people loans rather than free gifts. In that way, we can enable them to get back on their own two feet without giving them charity. Unconditional charity is expensive and relatively ineffective.
Secondly, instead of just unconditionally giving poor people food, clothes, shelter and healthcare, I suggest we require that the recipients of the help either get education and job training, or seek employment. If they work at a job that does not pay enough, they either need to also get more education and skills training, or they need to look for a higher paying job. The point is that if the person can get a job that pays enough, they need to get it. If they cannot get a job that pays enough, they need to get more education so that they can get a job that pays enough.
If some people refuse to get an education or get a sufficiently paying job, then I suggest we refuse to help them. The only exception would be the few people who literally cannot earn their own income, such as the elderly, the mentally ill, and the severely disabled.
Supporting people in those ways will help lead to self-sufficiency and thus a permanent solution to poverty. Additionally, it will help us focus our efforts on people who are willing to help themselves, rather than wasting our efforts on people who are not willing to help themselves. To be cliché, we need to help people help themselves.
Andrew Carnegie said, “There is no use whatsoever trying to help people who do not help themselves. You cannot push anyone up a ladder unless he is willing to climb himself.”
In conclusion, I agree with the findings of the Canadian study. Tougher rules on welfare and charity can make them much more effective.
You can post your thoughts about my suggestions at the Hunger and Poverty Forums. It’s completely free, and all viewpoints are welcome. You can also post your own suggestions there.